- (1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Mr. P. M. N. Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Prabha Nauliyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V. K. Kohli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Lokendra Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1. None for respondents Nos. 2 to 5.
(2.) THEY are heard. The petitioner, claiming himself to be a social worker, has filed this writ petition styled as 'public Interest Litiga tion' for the following reliefs: "1. A suitable writ or direction or or der in the nature of prohibition restraining Respondent institute from conducting Post Graduate studies in Medical Science and also be restrained from taking admission in the said courses. 2. Any other suitable writ or direc tion as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. Award cost of the Petitioner is fa vour of the Petitioner. " Mr. V. K. Kohli, the learned Sen ior Counsel for respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition as 'public Interest Litigation' at the behest of petitioner Om Prakash Sharma, who has not disclosed his status, occupation and credentials in the petition.
(3.) MR. P. M. N. Singh, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, to meet the above preliminary objection of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, took us through para 1 of the writ petition, which reads as follows: "1. That this is the first Writ Petition of the Petitioner before this Hon'ble High Court prohibiting the Respond ent institute from conduction post graduate studies in Medical Science and during the pendency of Writ Pe tition restraining it from taking ad mission in the said courses. Peti tioner has not filed any other Writ Petition seeking same or ancillary relief. It is stated that the Petitioner is social worker and this Petition is being filed in public interest. It is further stated that Petitioner has no interest adverse to or against the Re spondent No. 1 or any person con nected with it. " The Apex Court, in the case of Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136 while sounding a note of caution to the High Courts to weed out frivolous pe titions titled as 'public Interest Litiga tion', observed in paras 5 to 10: "5. The scope of entertaining a pe tition styled as a public interest liti gation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been ex amined by this Court in various cases. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the ap plicant; (b) the prima facie correct ness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The infor mation should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflict ing interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reck less allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoid ance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to as sail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, how ever, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely care ful to see that under the guise of re dressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere re served by the Constitution to the ex ecutive and the legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with impostors and busy- bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. 6. Courts must do justice by promo tion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by inter fering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu and A. P. State Financial Corp. v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills.) No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as" he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. [see Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr.) v. K. Parasaran. ] To day people rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attrac tive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in courts and among the public.;